' Through this writ petition, Mst. Sumaira Javed, Deputy Director, Basic Education Community Schools Project assailed the validity of the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by learned Special Judge (Rent), Multan whereby he dismissed the objection petition of the petitioner. I his order was followed by two other impugned orders dated 21.03.2013 and 28.03.2013 by which half of the pay of the petitioner was ordered to be attached.
2. The facts, in brief, are that M. Arshad Khan Tareen, Respondent No, 2 instituted an eviction petition against Education Foundation/Basic Education Community Schools, contending therein that he rented out Tareen House (the details whereof were set out in the eviction petition), situated at street Nb. 5, Piran Sahib Colony, MDA road, Multan to it. He succeeded in obtaining an ex parte eviction order dated 28.02.2012. Thereafter, he filed an execution petition seeking to take out execution of the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2012, which under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, is equated with a decree-passed by a Civil Court. It so happened that the petitioner herein filed an objection petition, raising a host of objections to the execution of the order dated 28.02.2012. The landlord/decree-holder filed a reply to the same. On 06.09.2012 the objection petition moved by the petitioner -herein was dismissed, the operative part whereof reads as under: "In view of what has been discussed above, the objection petition is dismissed. Since the possession of the suit property has been delivered to the decree holder. Now to come up for payment of outstanding dues for 28.09.2012."
3. Since the possession of the demised premises was delivered to M, Arshad Khan Tareen, Respondent No, 2 herein, the execution petition filed by him had largely borne fruit. However, he persisted in the recovery of arrears of rent alleged to be due from the National Education Foundation and the petitioner herein. Ultimately, on 21 03 2013 the learned Judge seized with the execution petition ordered the attachment of the half of the pay of the petitioner herein. . This was followed by the issuance of a warrant dated 28.03.2013.
4. In support of the petition, Mr. Muhammad Waseem Shahab Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a tenant under the landlord/decree-holder/ Respondent No,
2. In point of fact, the tenanted premises was let out to National Education Foundation, having its office at 316-H, Johar Town, Lahore. In other words, the default in the payment of rent, if any, was made by the said legal entity, and the petitioner being an employee of the said foundation-was not to be penalized for any act of commission or omission of the aforesaid tenant. He further submits, that the petitioner was wrongly arrayed as Respondent No, 2 in the ejectment petition. The very fact that she was shown as one of the respondents did not lead to the conclusion that she was liable for the making of payment of rent, if any, to the landlord. He goes on to argue that there is neither any provision in the Civil Procedure Code nor is there any judgment of a superior Court, empowering the learned Executing Court to attach half of the salary of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Mushtaq Mustafa Shah Advocate, learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 has supported the impugned orders. He submits that the petitioner being one of the respondents in the ejectment petition was as much liable as the National Education Foundation, the tenant.
According to him, the petitioner herself stuck her neck out by filing an objection petition. Had she not resisted the. Execution of the eviction order dated 28.02.2012, the landlord would not have relentlessly pursued his remedy as to the recovery of arrears of rent against her. He further argues that the petitioner being a Deputy Director at National Education Foundation cannot evade her liability by distancing herself from her employer on a hyper-technical plea. In other words, the employee and the employer are to sail in the same boat. This was essential to satisfy the eviction order/decree passed in favour of M. Arshad Khan Tareen in full.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents appended to the writ petition with their assistance.
7. It has not been denied by the petitioner that she is a Deputy Director, Basic Education Community Schools Project. This project was launched by National Education Foundation, which is a body corporate established under National Education Foundation Ordinance, 2002. Put simply, this is a legal entity, distinct from and independent of its Directors, or employees for that matter. It has an existence of its own in the eyes of law. The record appended to the writ petition, to which exception has not been taken by the learned counsel appearing for M. Arshad Khan Tareen.
Landlord/decree holder/Respondent No, 2, shows that the latter had entered into a lease agreement with National Education Foundation. For all practical purposes, National Education Foundation was a tenant under 'M. Arshad Khan Tareen. Miss Sumaira Javed, the petitioner herein could not by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises owned by M. Arshad Khan Tareen. The fact that she was arrayed as Respondent No, 2 in the eviction petition and/or that she filed an objection petition on behalf of National Education Foundation was not to lead to the conclusion that she would be elevated to the status of a tenant.
She is simply an employee of the tenant. Therefore, any liability which was to be discharged by her' employer would not automatically devolve to her. Under no circumstances could she be held liable for the payment of any arrears of rent due from National Education Foundation. If the decree- holder intended to satisfy his decree, he could have directed his efforts against the legal entity, National Education Foundation, rather than pushing the petitioner around. The manner in which he proceeded against the petitioner gives an unmistakable impression that she being a woman was treated as a soft target. The manner in which the learned Executing Court proceeded cannot be appreciated either. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for M. Arshad Khan Tareen, Respondent No, 2 was specifically asked to show the provision of law under which half of the salary of the petitioner was ordered to be attached. He did not have an answer to this query raised by the Court, meaning thereby that no such provision of law exists to justify the harsh and oppressive order passed by the learned Executing Court. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned orders dated 21.03.2014 and 28.03.2014 passed by learned Special Judge (Rent)/Civil Judge, Multan were passed without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. Both these orders made a mockery of law and travesty of justice, and cannot be allowed to be sustained. They are, therefore, struck down by allowing this petition..
8. This writ petition is allowed.